----- Original Message ----- From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Brin-L Constitution
> I know. But the problem as I see it, is that as soon as you put up rules, you > also give someone certain rights and the power to use it. Sonja, you are discussing this in a most reasonable fashion, so I don't want to say anything that sounds insulting. So, please forgive me in advance if I tread on y'alls toes here. However, I would like you to try to look at what happened from a different perspective. Things changed when the warning/threat of one step closer to banishment came. It is clear that Jeroen and Eileen have the power to banish JDG. It is clear to me, from Jeroen's posts, that he feels that Eileen and he already have the right to banish anyone they deem necessary. The repeated use of the police metaphor indicated to me that they were well within their rights to immediately kick him off and that he should be grateful for just getting a warning. I'm not trying to twist words here, honest. Let me put it in this perspective. Lets assume that JDG had semi-regular ICQ conversations with Eileen and got her to name him as a listowner (and that Jeroen and Eileen did not converse in the MUD). Lets assume that, in an argument where both became heated, Jeroen got the warning/threat. How would you feel about the informal way things happened? How would you feel if Jeroen were told that JDG was well within his rights to kick him off? >Where as the informal way we have been handling crisis situations until now, leaves room for debate > and flexibility depending on what the listmembers feel is appropriate. This is > especially good because the list community varies over time. I agree flexibility is good. I agree that a formal constitution will probably result in legalistic wrangling in the future. The essence of it, IMHO, is whether listowners do have the right to banish or issue warnings that someone is "one step closer to banishment" without a clear consensus of the active members of the list. In the case of Kyle, that consensus existed. I do not recall another time, until the last few weeks, where a listmember was told that he could/would be banished if he continued the behavior the listowner objected to. Yet, in those few weeks, it happened twice. I read the drive for a constitution as mainly a drive to get the listowners to agree to not banishing people on their own. Dan M.
